This is what we have established, it is not a setting or a construction, it is not any everyday fact, but a norm. When we understand statements of identity in a rational and intuitive action, their inevitability seems to be self-evident first. It is self-evident that A equals A.
However, in fact, necessity is in Fichte's view. Missing an important step, what did you miss? Where did he come from?
The proposition contains an authorization, which is an innate reasoning authorization that authorizes you to perform reasoning actions. In this step, you cannot reason without looking too much, which is to understand Fichte's concept of identity. A is equal to A, which represents the setting. There is a reasoning twist inside, which contains a thousand words and contains some of the fundamental secrets of Fichte philosophy.
He proposed that if it were him, it would be an internal necessity, the necessity of A being equal to A, which is based on innate reasoning. If A comes from here, as Fichte himself clearly saw, he would propose an advancement.
What and how, there is one thing that can gain authority to establish such an inevitability. You say this is a innate reasoning license. What is established without authority to establish such a reasoning license? It must be asked roughly, and Fichte does not avoid the question.
He said there will definitely be problems here. What exactly is it, and how can it have authority, and how can it obtain authority to establish such a license?
Fichte said that the intuitive necessity of A being equal to A proves that it comes from some individual, more fundamental thing. The inevitability of being perceived in relation to something more fundamental is generated. One thing we can be certain of now is that permission itself can only be established through an action that is not a fact in itself. No fact can establish a reasoning license. It is impossible for a fact to be there and say that I am reasoning. The only thing that can establish a license is an action. I give you permission to do it. How do you deduce it? This is an action.
Pay attention to the strong foundation of Fichte's practical philosophy.
The first step is not recognition, the first step is an action, a primitive action, which is to reason. I give you the right to reason, which is an action, not a fact. Only action can allow others to reason, it cannot be a fact.
Because we cannot say in any normative sense that only natural things act, and action is something that only we can say. People have action, but you cannot say that things have action, and natural things have no action. Therefore, the subject of establishing permission must itself be such an action. A method of establishing a license in a certain way, while also authorizing oneself to establish such a license action.
It is action to establish such a reasoning license. However, while establishing the license, the action also authorizes him to establish his own license. Some people may say that this is not a circular argument. When you establish a license, you are also authorized to establish such a license. According to the clues of our linear causal thinking, I should establish a license, and then I have the right to do so. There must be someone above who needs to authorize me to do so, so that I have the right to establish an authorization for others to reason. No, he is here. I suggest that "I" am the action, not to understand him as an object. I am the action, and I establish the license, which also authorizes me to establish this kind of license myself. There seems to be a cycle here, and I originally had the right, but I authorized myself. To whom, authorize myself, I authorize myself, I establish such a license.
There is clearly some kind of loop involved here. But it doesn't matter. Because Hegel later saw very clearly that for Westerners, circular reasoning is a terrible sin, because once trapped in circular reasoning, it is equivalent to declaring failure. But Hegel later said, 'I am spiraling upwards, and what I am talking about has not yet solved such a problem.'. Later on, Heidegger spoke the first sentence thoroughly, stating that transcendental philosophy must be cyclical to some extent. Why?
Because of his first transcendental philosophy, he must start from a source norm of one. Source standard, for us humans, there are only two paths to follow in our thinking.
One is that the theory of single line causality is causal causality, but it doesn't work. Why doesn't it work?
Immediately falling into infinite regression, like circular reasoning, infinite regression is logically invalid. I authorize you, others authorize me, and others authorize him again. This path cannot be taken. This path is theoretically ineffective, although we like to take it, where is the remaining path?
At least for Westerners, there are only two paths, either the current traceability path or the circular path. The German philosopher's achievement is a cyclical path. Why did Hegel explain it thoroughly? Initially, it was a setting, but after the setting unfolded throughout human history, he completed himself. On the surface, it appears to be a cycle, an unfolding. In our words, why does humanity have such a right? His entire historical practice fact gives him power, and what does power mean?
It will only be clear after fully unfolding. So, the theory of cycles is only circular in form and infinitely increasing in content, which is what Hegel meant by the spiral ascent.
German thought is really complicated. If we can attack German philosophy, there will be no difficulty in other things, because these are the basic ways of human thinking, and later nothing more than adding some special things. You can always revert back to some basic routines in the end, don't be fooled by the flashy things he talks about temporarily.
Take a moment to see, there must be some tricks behind him, there's nothing we can do about it. So, I want to speak slower here. Actually, I don't have enough time, but I have decided that if I don't explain it clearly, I will be confused. Because I can also ignore what is written in the book, where A equals A, and then A sets the object, which is meaningless. My lecture hopes to explain the internal theory clearly and why he talks about problems in this way.
So, his subject is an action, a method of establishing a license, and at the same time authorizing him to establish this license himself. In expressing the proposition of necessity, I am myself, in fact, using Kant's terminology, a self of synesthesia. Why is the act of establishing permission and authorization, which he himself establishes, necessary?
It must be done, and he himself is inevitable. Karl Fischer said that only reason knows, and only in rational intuition can you have such an action. This inevitability only exists in a rational intuition action, and the entire self set action is a rational intuition action. I see that it must be like this. Necessity does not come from some external so-called reasoning inevitability, but from the rational intuition itself. His actions beyond reason are his own.
According to Fichte, this is his original statement and epistemology that this inevitability itself cannot be proven or determined, he is the ultimate.
Because anything that needs to be proven and can be proven is definitely not the ultimate, and then I can use a certain sense of ultimate to prove it, but it cannot be the ultimate because it is the condition for all proofs. This is philosophy. Since Plato, Western philosophy has been saying, 'Where is the final guarantee of rationality for our knowledge of everything we have before?'?
He is a guarantee, how can you ask him to prove it? He wants to guarantee others' proof of others, but he cannot be proven. This is very clear. Whether you say he is incompetent or whatever you say about him, German philosophers believe that he cannot be proven or decided. Why?
Because he is absolute, everything that can be decided must be relative. He is absolute, cannot be decided, and cannot be proven that the two are necessarily together. The two are together.
In fact, Heidegger's later statement that existence is not an existent is also interesting. He said that the old metaphysics is wrong, which is to treat existence as an existent being, and not as an existent being, he cannot be determined. Everything that exists can be determined, and Heidegger's speech is also very economical. He implies that Plato's concept is called idea, Schopenhauer's will is called will, Nietzsche's will to power is called absolute spirit, and Hegel's will is called absolute spirit. They are all determined, and decision is determined. And existence itself is not existence, it cannot be determined or proven.
So, there are many things, although Heidegger did not say so, but his discourse on existence is essentially nothing more than these. These two sentences cannot be determined or proven, they are simply why? Because he is the last thing.
So, as the self of action, I need to understand it as action. As the self of action, it is not a natural thing, but what is it in itself?
It is a logic, a normative identity or status, which we can even understand as identity and status, implying a certain qualification. I am a member of the Politburo and I have the right to attend Politburo meetings. But I did not attend all the meetings of the Standing Committee. Status and identity imply qualifications, which can be understood in the sense of qualifications. 'I' is a normative identity, or a normative qualification, and he has the right to do what he wants.
Therefore, it seems that only by endowing him with his own, can he attain this status.
So, there needs to be an 'me', I am a qualification that needs to be given, who gave it or me, so that I can give it. This is a cycle, because it is the ultimate thing, that is such a cycle.
I am a qualification, I am a normative identity, I have the right to do so, but you have the right to do so. Whoever gives the right to me, I give the right back to me, or I want to give the right to someone else, but not me. This is a cycle, and it has to be like this.
